Dispatches from the 10th Crusade

What’s Wrong with the World
is dedicated to the defense of
what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of
the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the
Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Comments (57)

Come now. Lots of men in history have been faithful to their wives without being either saints or eunuchs. Just because, you know, they love their wives and have good marriages. I think this is a bit more cynical than we need to be.

I think it is mistaken to assume that the only reason a man is faithful to his wife and family is because he is not yet famous enough or powerful enough. I hope that some of us just value our family enough not to hurt them to satisfy selfish desires. Not to mention those of us in ministry that stand to lose all of the respect and trust of our respective communities.

It would have been interesting if Gov. Sanford had come out and said this in the press conference:

Ever since I can remember, I have desired to be a hypocrite, to join with other hypocrites in celebrating our mutual embracing of public masquerade and insincerity. This is why I entered politics. It seems so much a part of who I am I cannot abandon these desires now. I know, and I am saddened, that society does not accept me and others like me. But it is only because of its Christian belief in the wrongness of hypocrisy that our culture uncritically accepts these outdated norms. Look, if a man running for president can pretend to think one way, and then govern in another way on matters as wide ranging as health care, the federal budget, Gitmo, etc., why can't a governor tell a fib to his staff so he can spend a few days with Seniorita Homewrecker in Argentina? If you really believed in the horror of hypocrisy you wouldn't be so selective in your condemnation of those of us who don't fit your "model" of respectable hypocrisy.

This is how it begins my friends. You judge me because I am not your kind of hypocrite, and then, before you know it, some of us get pelted with rocks by hatemongers as we exit our churches on Sundays. How do you sleep at night?

I am genuinely shocked at this news -- not too long ago I remember reading TAC's cover story on Sanford and thinking to myself maybe he is just what the party needs right now, a plain-spoken, common-sense small government conservative who will do "crazy" things like turn down federal stimulus money because it comes with lots of requirements and obligations that South Carolina can't afford. I guess there is still Mitch Daniels and my favorite, Bobby Jindal -- if you told me either of them cheated on his wife I would also be shocked.

Which I guess speaks to Lydia's point -- while it is certainly true that lots of successful men have opportunities to cheat on their wives, there are both plenty of unsuccessful men who cheat (or never get married and father children out of wedlock) and plenty of successful men who remain faithful to their wives. So I'm not sure a couple of high-profile ancedotes tell us much either way about "successful conservative politicians" and their family lives.

But, as successful males, they are also bound (a-morally speaking) to cheat on their wives - men being what they are, and the opportunities for successful males being what they are.

I would add that it is not just the nature of males and the increased opportunities associated with success but also the very qualities that make a male successful (e.g., ambition, talent, etc.) that might make him more prone to stray.

"It's nice that Mark Sanford would pick Father's Day weekend for his romantic getaway to Argentina."

What I want to know is: was she "wise Latina woman? 'Cause it sure seems to me that "with the richness of her experiences, [she at least this one] reach[ed] a better conclusion than [the] white male who hasn't lived that life"

Arguably, adultery is consistent with an ideology that exults the autonomous individual as the desired cultural archetype operating within a laissez faire economic order.

Comparative advantage, mobility and profit maximaztion are virtues that combined with the reductionist view of marriage as a contractural arrangement create the conditions and provide the rationalizations for adultery.

Which is why many rightists may stray from home, they are simply applying the concepts that they preach in public to their private lives.

But, as successful males, they are also bound (a-morally speaking) to cheat on their wives - men being what they are, and the opportunities for successful males being what they are.

One need only look at the divorce statistics to realize that women, not men, are the overwhelming force behind the destruction of marriage. Conservatives continue to see no evil, hear no evil, smell no evil in their views on men and women.

I would add that it is not just the nature of males and the increased opportunities associated with success but also the very qualities that make a male successful (e.g., ambition, talent, etc.) that might make him more prone to stray.

It's also in the nature of women to seek out the best, most aggressive males to have children. Someone once said that the reason so many women like men who will cheat for them is that their existing relationship proves that other women find that man to be desirable, thus there must be something worthwhile about him.

Yeah, right, Kevin. It's the fault of capitalism, of course. Man, what an ideologue you are. And all those idealistic socialists who aren't so darned individualistic are the loving, faithful, husbands, I suppose. Sheesh.

Lydia, no I'm viewing marriage from the perspective of my Catholic faith, not from the vantage point of a political ideology or program called; "conservative" as stated in this post.

Nor, did I imply that collectivists make better spouses than individualists since both "religions" are united in their materialistic, de-sacramentalized view of life.

Again, many conservatives are all for free transactions between consenting adults so no one should be all that surprised if they carry that over into their family lives. Instead of hypocisy we might bemoan their ruthless consistency.

Kevin, only some people calling themselves "conservative" take a libertarian/libertine position on sexual ethics. I have no reason to believe that Mark Sanford was one of these and reasons to believe that he was not. I realize that _you_ think that if someone believes in free market economics in any sense whatsoever this means that "in consistency" he is bound to believe that consenting adults may morally engage in any sexual behavior they please, but actually, it doesn't follow.

Kevin, only some people calling themselves "conservative" take a libertarian/libertine position on sexual ethics. I have no reason to believe that Mark Sanford was one of these and reasons to believe that he was not. I realize that _you_ think that if someone believes in free market economics in any sense whatsoever this means that "in consistency" he is bound to believe that consenting adults may morally engage in any sexual behavior they please, but actually, it doesn't follow.

Not only does it not follow, but it is downright intellectually dishonest to say that it does. Adultery is a fundamental breach of contract, and contracts are damn near a sacrament in libertarian thinking. In fact, that's why I've called marriage the black sheep of contracts in mainstream libertarianism because it's the only contract which most libertarians are willing to be hypocrites on. That hypocrisy comes from the fact that a great many libertarians are cut more from the same cloth as Bill Maher than Hayek and Rothbard.

Kevin is just being his usual self, simultaneously bemoaning capitalism and socialism as if a third way between those ever existed except on paper.

Lydia,
First, I don't know enough about Mark Sanford and don't want to dwell on his family's personal tragedy. Those who celebrate his fall, or that of others in his position are cretins.

My point is that there is a perverse inversion going on all across the board. Politics is now truly personal to the point where faith is shaped by and subservient to ideology or philosophy.

Second, the advocate of a morally neutral economic system is especially vulnerable to extending that view into other areas of life due to the raw intellectual logic of it all, and the way it neatly conforms to the hedonistic culture.

Daniel Bell's thesis from the 70's about the cultural contradictions of capitalism can manifest itself within the interior life on capitalism's advocates.

Mike T,
There is only one Way and once you divorce Him from our various systems all hell breaks out.

***I don't debate the necessity of having a relationship with Jesus toward marriage, but you have just insinuated that when we separated Christianity from the political system, all hell broke lose (what else could you mean by "various systems?") However, the fact that Mormons, Hindus, Buddhists and others around the world frequently have good marriages, despite not being Christians, proves that Jesus is not the sine qua non of a healthy marriage.

My in-laws' pastor, a Mennonite pastor, put it like this. If you practice values similar to what the Bible says, you will prosper without Jesus. You just won't go to heaven when you die.

The reason marriage is failing in our country is because of basic selfishness. It really is that simple. People are willing to violate their most basic principles to indulge themselves, as we can see in the example of many libertarians cheerfully violating all of their principles about contracts and freely-made agreements to indulge themselves.

Well, when you start talking about the death penalty for women who procure abortions and gloating over the killing of someone, you've entered a really toxic place. Here's hoping you were just being excessively provocative.

if someone believes in free market economics in any sense whatsoever this means that "in consistency" he is bound to believe that consenting adults may morally engage in any sexual behavior they please, but actually, it doesn't follow.

Lydia and Mike T make a good point that breaching this "contract" is in fact against a free market economy point of view rather than consistent with it. Assuming you consented to fidelity in the first contract.

Lydia and Mike T make a good point that breaching this "contract" is in fact against a free market economy point of view

No, reducing marriage to a contract is consistent with a free market point of view and the genesis of the problem. Contracts are invalidated all the tiem and typically the wrong party is financially compensated and the violator penalized.

Do you see the problem with this barren and ideological understanding of marriage, life and reality?

Of course Lydia and, I assume, Mike T don't think that marriage is exhausted by its contractual obligations. They're just saying that if you take the view that (1) marriage is just a contract, because (2) life, on libertarianism, should be seen as a set of contracts among consenting adults, then that in itself is not going to make you likely to be adulterous, because you're going to think that adultery is a violation of the contract, and therefore shouldn't be done.

As for your response, "well, contracts are violated all the time, so people will think it's no big deal to violate the marriage contract", well, perhaps. But that's not endemic to capitalism; the inclination to violate one's contracts for personal gain precedes capitalism and is a result of fallen human nature.

Well, when you start talking about the death penalty for women who procure abortions and gloating over the killing of someone, you've entered a really toxic place. Here's hoping you were just being excessively provocative.

My position on executing women or imprisoning them for life (I'm fine with either, but I consider the former more humane) for abortion is simply based on my views on murder.

Abortion is murder.
Murder is a capital crime.
Abortion is a capital crime.
QED

No, reducing marriage to a contract is consistent with a free market point of view and the genesis of the problem. Contracts are invalidated all the tiem and typically the wrong party is financially compensated and the violator penalized.

Do you see the problem with this barren and ideological understanding of marriage, life and reality?

The contractual nature of marriage does not detract from its spiritual aspects unless you believe that there are no spiritual aspects to contracts.

Of course Lydia and, I assume, Mike T don't think that marriage is exhausted by its contractual obligations. They're just saying that if you take the view that (1) marriage is just a contract, because (2) life, on libertarianism, should be seen as a set of contracts among consenting adults, then that in itself is not going to make you likely to be adulterous, because you're going to think that adultery is a violation of the contract, and therefore shouldn't be done.

Exactly. In fact, under a libertarian system it would be possible for the church to actually live out its teachings on marriage by drafting contracts which use the secular courts to enforce things like penalizing those who remarry while their spouse is still alive. Oh, snap.. that's right. Most churches, including the Roman Catholic Church, already don't even expect their congregations to abide by those restrictions. They'd rather rant about pornography and homosexuality than address a "marriage" which is technically an act of adultery every second both people participate in it.

Sometimes I wonder if Kevin's comments about capitalism and socialism, and human nature don't hint at a damn near rousseauean view of original sin and human nature.

Of course Lydia and, I assume, Mike T don't think that marriage is exhausted by its contractual obligations.

Bobcat,
The sacrament of marriage is drained of its mystical essence by the lexicon of "contracts." It is the subversion of an eternal bond through a secular understanding. The libertarian ethos is not one that is very strong at reigning in self-interest and gratification. Does that mean the Von Mises crowd are all adulterers? No, just that they are extremely susceptible to applying their ideology to their own flesh and blood.

The contractual nature of marriage does not detract from its spiritual aspects unless you believe that there are no spiritual aspects to contracts

Mike T, legal proceduralisms and fictions like the Social Contract are offered as substitiutes for the spiritual bond. That is the whole point.

Also, since *all* our systems are corrupted when we stop following the Way, why then do you keep singling out capitalism as the cause of immoral behavior?

Pointing out socialism's failings on this site isn't any fun and merely fortfys the misunderstanding that many here are laboring under. In the case of this thread; that "Conservative" is somehow synonymous with or equal to Christian Orthodoxy, or that capitalism as it is practiced in reality is not a solvent of traditional religions and ways of life.

Mike T, legal proceduralisms and fictions like the Social Contract are offered as substitiutes for the spiritual bond. That is the whole point.

How they are offered by some people does not change the objective fact that there is a spiritual angle to every contract you make.

Pointing out socialism's failings on this site isn't any fun and merely fortfys the misunderstanding that many here are laboring under. In the case of this thread; that "Conservative" is somehow synonymous with or equal to Christian Orthodoxy, or that capitalism as it is practiced in reality is not a solvent of traditional religions and ways of life.

Capitalism itself is nothing more than a manifestation of the human nature to own, buy, sell and produce property or services. It is the default mechanism by which people relate to one another on economic terms. Wherever two people who want to haggle over the exchange or ownership of something, there exists a market and capitalism. You're conflating the corruption that has seeped its way into modern thinking about markets with capitalism itself.

There is nothing new under the sun, and in all times and places, corruption has been more of the rule than exception. I think you look to the past with too much of a rosy view. The wheels are spinning, giving the illusion of progress to come, but the car's not moving.

I wd. also point out that it is possible both to be sympathetic to the free market without being any sort of highly self-conscious libertarian _and_ to be a Christian without any inconsistency whatsoever. My impression is that this is what this governor probably aspired to. In that case one has multiple reasons not to cheat on one's wife, and one definitely believes that one's marriage is not less than but more than a contract, just in case its being a contract isn't enough of a psychological motivator. It's really very simple, but Kevin is never able to see things that are normal, reasonable, and simple, because he has to fit them into his box.

regarding marriage as nothing other than a business transaction and not a sacred institution or, more precisely, a sacrament.

My misrepresentation alert just went off. But trying to explain to Ari when he's misrepresented one, even with quotes about, you know, how marriage is _much more than_ a contract, etc., is probably an exercise in futility. Sigh.

One needs to be sure of one's terms here. When older critics of capitalism used the word, they tended to mean industrial and/or corporate capitalism, or that of the unfettered laissez-faire sort. But even such men as Chesterton and Belloc, or the Southern Agrarians didn't have a problem with what might be called "small market" capitalism, i.e., the typical market-based exchanges that Mike T. writes of.

Nowadays I think that when we hear people defending "capitalism" we assume that it's today's big business/corporate version that's being defended, but that isn't always the case (although among many conservatives, that assumption might be correct).

For myself, while I consider myself a capitalist in the looser sense, I'm with Wendell Berry in being equally suspicious of both big government and big business.

Pointing out socialism's failings on this site isn't any fun and merely fortfys the misunderstanding that many here are laboring under.

So where's the site at which you're railing against socialism?

In the case of this thread; that "Conservative" is somehow synonymous with or equal to Christian Orthodoxy, or that capitalism as it is practiced in reality is not a solvent of traditional religions and ways of life.

Marriage as it is practiced in reality is also a solvent of traditional religions and ways of life. It too is corrupted by people turning from the Way, like all our institutions. And yet, I don't see you railing against marriage (as well you shouldn't). The problems with marriage as practiced aren't endemic to marriage itself, but are rather corruptions of it.

But when it comes to capitalism, there's no end to your railing about how it's to blame for all of our social ills (and, if pressed, you'll give the caveat that socialism is bad too). But you've given no argument that any of this bad stuff is actually intrinsic to capitalism, or encouraged by capitalism, and not simply the result of human sin.

When asked for your own "non-evil" alternative to both capitalism and socialism, you cite The Way (ie, the Christian life). That, however, is a non-answer, because The Way is not an economic system, and is not a possible substitute for an economic system.

In reality, you can either have a system where people are allowed to keep their possessions and use them how they wish (capitalism), or you can have a system where some ruling body confiscates some or all of their possessions, and uses them how the ruling body wishes (socialism).

That seems to me to pretty much exhaust all the options, but if you actually have some "Third Way" then let's hear it already. Otherwise, I'll have to stick to the conclusions I have already drawn from your arguments: that you're simply a self-righteous Pharisee who loves to engage in holier-than-thou moral preening.

blockquote>So where's the site at which you're railing against socialism?

Deuce,
Good one -you got me on that one.

Marriage as it is practiced in reality is also a solvent of traditional religions and ways of life.

See marriage and the cash nexus are on the same plane for you, when my point is that the institution has fallen prey to the spirit of commerce and lost direct contact with the Spirit.

But you've given no argument that any of this bad stuff is actually intrinsic to capitalism, or encouraged by capitalism, and not simply the result of human sin

.

So, you'e saying capitalism lacks the internal content to resist sin. We're in agreement then. Then why is it not “conservative" to commit adultery?

When asked for your own "non-evil" alternative to both capitalism and socialism

The plague of dualism has been a disaster. My answer was simple; if we make Christ visible in our every day lives and rely on Him and not some ideology as the Source for our thoughts, words and acts then I would think any economic system would be more humane than the one we have now. Not true?

In reality, you can either have a system where people are allowed to keep their possessions and use them how they wish (capitalism), or you can have a system where some ruling body confiscates some or all of their possessions, and uses them how the ruling body wishes (socialism).

Well, I don't know if you noticed, but the ruling body in our current arrangement just engineered the greatest transfer of wealth in human history, so I'd hope you would aim higher than at shallow dialectic.

Otherwise, I'll have to stick to the conclusions I have already drawn from your arguments: that you're simply a self-righteous Pharisee who loves to engage in holier-than-thou moral preening

.

Pharisees? Weren’t they the ones quite comfortable in their spiritually empty economic settlement?

Did I not make it clear that you were no longer welcome to comment on my posts, unless & until you explained your previous care-free lies about my views? (I.e., unless & until you admitted that you were wrong & apologized?)

I think that I did.

But here you are again, spitting your usual venom.

Trouble is, various other commenters have posted worthwhile replies to your standard schtick, none of which would make any sense if I simply deleted your comments.

So I guess I'll just leave up those that are already up.

Fair warning, though: unless & until I get that admission & apology, any further comments by you (Kevin) on this or any other thread of mine will be deleted without notice.

Nothing I said implied that. I merely pointed out one similarity between the two to prove a point.

My answer was simple; if we make Christ visible in our every day lives and rely on Him and not some ideology as the Source for our thoughts, words and acts then I would think any economic system would be more humane than the one we have now.

This is a red herring. Nobody here has suggested making capitalism "the Source for our thoughts, words and acts". We've simply said that it's the best economic system possible in this world.

Sure, the economy and everyone in it would be better if everyone made Christ visible in their every day lives. But guess what? "Wouldn't it be nice if people were good and obeyed God all the time" is *not* an economic system. Secondly, at least under a capitalist system, people have the *option* of freely using their possessions in a Christ-like manner, so it allows for your utopia in principle. Socialism, on the other hand, starts from the assumption that people need to have their belongings confiscated in order for them to be used "correctly" by the government, and so is unjust by definition.

Well, I don't know if you noticed, but the ruling body in our current arrangement just engineered the greatest transfer of wealth in human history, so I'd hope you would aim higher than at shallow dialectic.

Uh, yeah, and I don't know a single capitalist who thinks that it was an example of capitalism.

Let's start forming lines of teenage mothers who either deliberately or was pressured into abortions and start some mass executions, shall we?

We can put this under the Mike T's noble cause: "Because God's Mercy (and Word) Is As I Define It To Be & He Wants You DEAD, DEAD, DEAD!!"

What a remarkable lesson to demonstrate what the Culture of Life (or, rather, Death) is all about!

I can only assume that Aristocles and Kevin firmly reject the idea that abortion is murder because of statements like this from both of them. If that is not the case, and this is just Aristocles once again being wildly emotional, then I think it is ironic that anyone would promote a "Culture of Life" by not fully protecting all human life from homicide with the full power of the legal system.

And FYI, Aristocles, I have stated quite explicitly in the past on WWwtW that I whole-heartedly support amnesty for those who have committed abortions up to the point of prohibition. There are two reasons for that: I firmly support the Constitution's prohibition of ex post facto laws, and I see no reason why we cannot, for the sake of expediency, leave those who committed abortions up until a certain point to be tried in God's court.

I just wanted to address another of Mike T's deliberate misrepresentations... now, back to our originally scheduled program.

Did I claim here that I didn't experience a strong dose of schadenfreude at Tiller's death? Not only have I never denied that, but I have refused to apologize for that on the grounds that such an apology would be dishonest. I even admitted that I know intellectually that it is a moral failing on my part, but in my heart, I am no more grieved for him than I am any officer who worked in the SS, the gulag or carried out Pol Pot's orders against the people of Cambodia.

It is noteworthy that you not only did not acknowledge the fact that my stated position on punishing abortion is reasonably similar to yours, but that I actually vehemently oppose violating the Constitution to exact justice.

The plague of dualism has been a disaster. My answer was simple; if we make Christ visible in our every day lives and rely on Him and not some ideology as the Source for our thoughts, words and acts then I would think any economic system would be more humane than the one we have now. Not true?

Not true. Our actions would certainly be more humane, but the greater society would not be because there never has been a genuinely Christian nation. Many have been under the memetic influence of Christianity to a great degree, but not sufficient to be transformed in kind rather than degree. If your point were true, then Communism could have worked if Christians worked within the boundaries of Communist economics (as opposed to politics and metaphysics) while reflecting Christ in their lives.

But there are capitalists, and then again there are "capitalists," you know.

Yes, Steve, I know. And the best and brightest work on Wall Street creating unimagined wealth with unregulated, imaginary instruments. I like the way that Deuce chap is shifting the focus back on the socialists, that insufferable soup kitchen inhabitant called Kevin and all the other crucifix wielding hand biters.

Post a comment

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If
your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same
comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.

Reverse the order of the digits in 31, then type the answer using letters instead of numbers, all lower case. (required):